Do you think Dual Crown Forks are on their way out?

Kntr · Nov 19, 2004

Ill stick with the DC. I have had a DC crown on my bike for over 6 years now. I even ran a 00 Jr T on my XC bike back in the day. Then I ran a 00 Super T on my XC bike. I have owned SCs also but always hated the flex when going down steep rocky chutes. I will never trust a SC on bigger drop either. There is no way a SC could have lasted on some of the stupid things I have done. When I look back at all the times I came up short on a double, nosed down off a drop, or any hard landing when I came down on the front end, there is NO way a SC would have held up. With the strength of the new SCs I would now run one on a XC or trail bike but I would never run one on a FR or DH bike. Maybe Im just not a smooth enough rider for a SC.

Dont get me wrong, there are many people that a SC would work for on a FR/DH bike but not me. LONG LIVE THE DC....

Bulldog · Nov 19, 2004

zane said:
If SC forks are the "way to go", and that they can be as strong as DC forks, how come you've never seen them on any motorcycle?

And the strength of a SC fork still can't be compared to a DC fork (of equivilant age & technology). People say their 66's are really stiff, but they're just a 888 with the top crown missing.

I do think that longer-travel SC forks have their place (trail riding, freeride, urban hucks, etc) but for DH racing I don't think you can get DC stiffness out of a SC fork.

People should never compare mtb's to motorcycles. Ever. Whole different ballpark. :dead:

And no the 66 is not a 888 with a missing crown. That's a foolish statement. The crown for the 66 is designed for its purpose, and the steerer tube is a frikkin monster! The steerer is over a pound by itself! The 888 has no such attention payed to it. Heck, look at the crown of a Breakout+ vs the Slider, again way way different.

And lastly it's not exactly about getting DC stiffness out of a SC. A SC is lighter every time, and as long as you can find adequate to exceptional stiffness why does it need to be stiffer yet? I could never feel my Monster T flex, but it surely wasn't flex-free. That was '99. We've come a long way since then. SC forks that rival Boxxer and Slider stiffness is not out of our reach anymore.

PsychO!1 · Nov 19, 2004

I Can definitly see the SC forks taking a good portion of maket share from the DC forks, but not all. I think the the DC forks will always have a place in the longer travel (8"+) catagory. Although, I can see the eventual extinction of DC forks with less than 7" travelt.

Captain Crunch · Nov 19, 2004

Well, for my part, my bike just lost 5 1/2 lbs. by losing the Monster in favor of a 03' Z1fr. Not only does it look sick, but it should be loads of fun jumping on it and goofing off all winter till Whistler season starts again. I certainly will switch back to a DC for next season, as I have had saddle time at Whistler and local trails on both 6 and 7 inch breakouts and breakout pluses. I like those forks a whole lot, but neither is the DH fork that my old ass monster is, or even the Boxxer race I had before that. DC's work better on fast and bumpy, steep and scary, no doubt about it.

The SC's feel light, maneuverable, flickable, and more like a bicycle than a moto feeling beasty, as my Bullit feels behind the Monster.

I'm going freeriding on local trail today to shakedown the Z1, I'll post here about my ride when I get through, this will be my first ride on steep trail on a fork so short, so it should be educational. The trail I'm about to ride has several stunts as well as drops, ranging in size from 3 to 8 feet or so. I plan to attempt all the moves I have done up to this point with my big forks. I expect to have no problem. I weigh 167 as of last night, so we'll see.....

I think DC's are here to stay, the fun thing is, now we have a ****eload of other choices that will work dope for lots of applications, including DH, maybe even race worthy for some. You can NEVER tell someone they can't race a given setup, they'll prove you wrong time after time.

fun thread though!

nickaziz · Nov 19, 2004

scurban said:
If we are going to progress in freeride, riders will have to start doing barspins, tailwhips, x-ups, and combinations off of huge drops, which can't be done with DC's. To do these tricks off huge stunts is going to require light weight forks, (for toss-abiltiy), and high strength (to handle impacts).

X-ups and barspins are fairly simple tricks and I don't think they will be the focus of the big air trick world. I won't loose any sleep over not being able to x-up on my big bike. Go watch freestyle motocross. Every single trick they do is far more impressive than an x-up or bar spin. That's where the top freeriders should be looking for inspiration.

I agree the tailwhip is a very cool and impressive trick, so in a way I would like to see a SC fork for these sort of variations. However, I've heard talk of people doing tailwhip type moves on mx bikes into foam pits, so maybe it can be done a different way without a sc fork.

I do feel a strong, 8" single crown fork for hucking and freeriding and dh would be awsome. However, i believe it would have to weight MORE than an 8" dc to be as strong as one. I'd ride it, but I think it would be a relatively niche product for people who want to go big and do tricks.

scurban said:
If a single crown fork can take the abuse of doing a barspin off a 40 foot gap, it will probably hold up to your "weekend warrior abuse"

That might be true, but a) a lot of weekend warriors are hacks and b) a "40ft gap" (or any distance jump for that matter) doesn't put much stress on a fork unless there's a big drop involved or huge height gained from the jump.

James | Go-Ride · Nov 19, 2004

Two reasons why DC forks will never go away:

1) DC forks have the potential to be tuned more specifically with less intricate tech. Because they can have a longer spring stack and more air and oil voume due to the extra ten inches or so of fork leg, there's more you can do with the fork without making it a gigantic headache to try and get everything set up right. There's no reason you couldn't get a SC fork to the same level of tuneability, but it would simply be more touchy with the smaller volume.

2) If a single-crown fork fails, the rider dies. Well, maybe not dies, but generally it's not a good situation. Because DC forks have two crowns, usually they crack between the crowns which does not cause the front wheel to fall away and have the rider go straight to his head. I can't explain the physics behind because I really don't know much about metals and vectors and whatever, but from working at a shop for long enough, I can say that I have never seen a DC fork snap off below the lower crown. Usually the headtube fails before the fork does, and any serious rider knows that frames have limits and you should check your head tube area fairly regularly for cracks.

I don't know that the MX bike comparison is very fair here. Moto bikes do weigh a lot more and do gigantic airs and whatnot, so it makes sense that they have a DC fork. However, that doesn't mean bicycles don't need them. The WP forks on Scott's KTM probably weigh about 40 pounds. Each leg weighs 14, so there's still a solid axle and crownset to factor in. If you consider that a Boxxer or 888 weighs 7.5 pounds and that guys are doing 80 foot step downs on them, I would say it's not unreasonable to want a DC fork over an SC in certain situations.

fatchance · Nov 19, 2004

MtnbikeMike said:
Keep you eyes on the trail and you won't need to worry about where your crowns are

haha..

touché

llkoolkeg · Nov 19, 2004

James | Go-Ride said:
Two reasons why DC forks will never go away:

1) DC forks have the potential to be tuned more specifically with less intricate tech. Because they can have a longer spring stack and more air and oil voume due to the extra ten inches or so of fork leg, there's more you can do with the fork without making it a gigantic headache to try and get everything set up right. There's no reason you couldn't get a SC fork to the same level of tuneability, but it would simply be more touchy with the smaller volume.

2) If a single-crown fork fails, the rider dies. Well, maybe not dies, but generally it's not a good situation. Because DC forks have two crowns, usually they crack between the crowns which does not cause the front wheel to fall away and have the rider go straight to his head. I can't explain the physics behind because I really don't know much about metals and vectors and whatever, but from working at a shop for long enough, I can say that I have never seen a DC fork snap off below the lower crown. Usually the headtube fails before the fork does, and any serious rider knows that frames have limits and you should check your head tube area fairly regularly for cracks.

I don't know that the MX bike comparison is very fair here. Moto bikes do weigh a lot more and do gigantic airs and whatnot, so it makes sense that they have a DC fork. However, that doesn't mean bicycles don't need them. The WP forks on Scott's KTM probably weigh about 40 pounds. Each leg weighs 14, so there's still a solid axle and crownset to factor in. If you consider that a Boxxer or 888 weighs 7.5 pounds and that guys are doing 80 foot step downs on them, I would say it's not unreasonable to want a DC fork over an SC in certain situations.

Good points. I have an '04 Banshee Chaparral w/Vanilla RC that I run in 6" travel. On the front of it is an '01 Super T...a 6" reasonably light DC. For no other reason beyond but sheer vanity, I have considered selling it to get a 6" 66RC or other 6" SC w/o any air-assisted crap(if one exists). Every time I came close to doing so, though, I kept hearing "Why?" resounding internally. Needless to say, I'm still on the '01 Super T and have yet to see a compelling reason to "upgrade". Can anyone make an argument for doing so? I'm an XXL lug, none too smooth(except w/ the ladies

) and don't do Xups or barspins.

OGRipper · Nov 19, 2004

Good thread yooz monkeys, now this is some proper e-spec!

I'm surprised anyone here would say fork companies will "never" make an 8" travel SC. "Never" does not apply to technological advances, especially something as incremental as just one more inch of travel. We will see 8" SC forks. I'd say within two years, but I think it depends in part on how the 66 holds up to serious abuse this year. If we don't start seeing lots of them breaking (and I don't think we will), one more inch will come soon.

Do we need them? Well, do we really NEED any of this stuff? Personally I like having more choices, and think long travel SC forks make a lot of sense, especially for lighter and smoother riders who don't flex the hell out of everything. Without getting into the "bmx envy" thing, more turning radius and less knee banging are enough reasons for me.

I don't necessarily think the newer 8" DCs are a response to the longer travel SC forks. Frames have been way over 7" travel for years, and new damping technology allows longer travel in front without all the dive. Plus a lot of people have realized that closer front/rear travel makes for a more balanced bike, so as long as people want more than 7" in the rear, it was inevitable that front travel would increase.

Roasted · Nov 19, 2004

My answer is simple. No they won't. I know for me I simply don't trust them the way I do a dc. Regardless of actual capabilities, I sit on a bike with a sc and I think pinner...I sit on a bike with a dc and I want to abuse the bike. Maybe it is my size, my ability to be a hack or just the fact I like the look of dc's. But I really don't see them going anywhere anytime soon. I know I will never huck or do dh on a sc...

Enginerd A2 · Nov 19, 2004

I'm stoked about all these new forks. I'm a skinny kid who climbs and doesn't race and likes his bikes to be really versatile, so I'm all about trying a new LT SC, probably a Manitou Stance Flow due to budget constraints. I'm pretty comfortable with the idea of hitting some big lines on a single crown fork, but that comes from not weighing a lot and not breaking a lot. I would agree, though, that DC forks are here stay, and so are 5" SC forks, hopefully, because I think they are the most versatile of all forks.

leprechaun · Nov 19, 2004

I rode a 6" Mani breakout all summer and did drops etc that i never thought i would do on a sc.I only trust it since it is 1.5.I've recently seen the super thick newer 1 1/8 steerer tubes fail and yes it is very ugly.
If you are doing mega huge airs though why run the risk? My man James is right about where DC forks fail The reason 888's legs are machined down between the crowns is to make a controlled failure area.Sometimes somethin's gotta go and if you make a grave mistake...
perhaps 150-170mm is where we should leave it.That is 170 with a low a-c.
If you case some 30 foot step down on a 66 170 that is such a rediculous amount of load on the steerer.Even if it doesn't break it could be severly weakened.I check my head tube every ride for cracks.Have you ever pulled your fork off just to examin the steerer?
I was very impressed with the stiffness of my Sherman.However when i made the recent purchase of a 170mm fork i went for an 888 170(with lowriders).The 66 i was considering is 7.25 lbs,and my 888 is 7.5lbs,and is 21.25" tall,being 2" shorter than the 66.Yes it's a lot more money,but geez the numbers make the diffrence!
If 1.5 catched on then this could be a more valid arguement,otrher than the sudden failure argument.
Where's BCD??? He rode a SC sherman 170 for DH all season.I'm curious of his response.

-BB- · Nov 19, 2004

IMO the DC will always be around. To get an 8in SC, you will have to have such a tall arch that you will be up higher on a SC than on a DC.
I think that the DC is the only way to get long travel and a low Axle-crown height.
If a SC fork tried to get the same, they would have to make the crown/stantion connection so high that you wouldn't be able to clear it on the Downtube, thus negating the point of having a SC.

OGRipper · Nov 19, 2004

nickaziz said:
However, I've heard talk of people doing tailwhip type moves on mx bikes into foam pits, so maybe it can be done a different way without a sc fork.

Maybe it's me but I just can't see it. A tailwhip is when you hold the bars, jump off the pedals to one side, and kick your tail all the way around and jump back on from the other side. Can't do it with a DC. Can you explain what you mean?

PsychO!1 · Nov 19, 2004

This Thread Is Just Begging For This Pic...

math2014 · Nov 19, 2004

I dont know if SC or DC will prevail all i know is :

Back in 1990 people said suspension forks are bad idea, they rob energy.... by 1994 they were all proven wrong. Same with FS bikes. So although i cannot predict the future, i can say that maybe in 5 or 10yrs new materials will allow for 8" SC forks which are low enough and 2x or multiple times stiffer than today's existing forks.

It would be very interesting to save this thread, and re-read it in 2010 or something....

seismic · Nov 19, 2004

PsychO!1 said:
This Thread Is Just Begging For This Pic...

WOW

that is one big fork !

Enginerd A2 · Nov 19, 2004

leprechaun said:
I rode a 6" Mani breakout all summer and did drops etc that i never thought i would do on a sc.I only trust it since it is 1.5.I've recently seen the super thick newer 1 1/8 steerer tubes fail and yes it is very ugly.
If you are doing mega huge airs though why run the risk? My man James is right about where DC forks fail The reason 888's legs are machined down between the crowns is to make a controlled failure area.Sometimes somethin's gotta go and if you make a grave mistake...
perhaps 150-170mm is where we should leave it.That is 170 with a low a-c.
If you case some 30 foot step down on a 66 170 that is such a rediculous amount of load on the steerer.Even if it doesn't break it could be severly weakened.I check my head tube every ride for cracks.Have you ever pulled your fork off just to examin the steerer?
I was very impressed with the stiffness of my Sherman.However when i made the recent purchase of a 170mm fork i went for an 888 170(with lowriders).The 66 i was considering is 7.25 lbs,and my 888 is 7.5lbs,and is 21.25" tall,being 2" shorter than the 66.Yes it's a lot more money,but geez the numbers make the diffrence!
If 1.5 catched on then this could be a more valid arguement,otrher than the sudden failure argument.
Where's BCD??? He rode a SC sherman 170 for DH all season.I'm curious of his response.

Krispy, you do not account for the average rider, but it's cool to hear that you put some faith in 1.5 SC forks. I didn't know about the "fuse" thats built into 888's, that's a pretty compelling argument in itself for sticking with DC forks on the big stuff. My big stuff is not your big stuff, however. I go way bigger. Wait, are we talking about girls or bikes?

ioscope · Nov 19, 2004

Long travel SC are on their way out!!!

Keeeeyai! That's eKarate!

Roasted · Nov 19, 2004

PsychO!1 said:
This Thread Is Just Begging For This Pic...

Has that thing been used yet. I was watchng some mx expecting to see it...well more wanting to see it than expecting

narlus · Nov 19, 2004

James | Go-Ride said:
, but from working at a shop for long enough, I can say that I have never seen a DC fork snap off below the lower crown.

i thought you guys were stratos dealers?

i had a FR5 snap off on a small drop; luckily i was wearing a full-face at the time, but i still got my bell rung pretty good. my fork was famous for a while, it was on the stratos page as what *not* to do (the pinch bolts were over-torqued and weakened the stanchions; the bike was a demo bike i bought from a store).

nickaziz · Nov 19, 2004

OGRipper said:
Maybe it's me but I just can't see it. A tailwhip is when you hold the bars, jump off the pedals to one side, and kick your tail all the way around and jump back on from the other side. Can't do it with a DC. Can you explain what you mean?

It would involve slamming the fork to the side till it bottoms agaisnt the frame and then letting the bike do a 360 while you float above. I dont know what you would call this but I think it would be cool to see landed.

leprechaun · Nov 19, 2004

Take this!
That moto sc fork only gets about 6" travel!(1/2 of the travel of average moto fork) :eviltongu
odd, never seen it used.. :think:

Little update- i only used the sherm on skinnies,some doubles,small drops and trail-not hucks.

OGRipper · Nov 19, 2004

nickaziz said:
It would involve slamming the fork to the side till it bottoms agaisnt the frame and then letting the bike do a 360 while you float above. I dont know what you would call this but I think it would be cool to see landed.

If they're letting go of the bars while they "float above," that sounds like a "360 Nothing" or something that needs its own name. (How about a "Mayhem Whip"?)

Sick, totally sick. But still, not really a tailwhip.

What was this about again?

Oh yeah, single crowns are cool.

buildyourown · Nov 19, 2004

math2014 said:
I dont know if SC or DC will prevail all i know is :

Back in 1990 people said suspension forks are bad idea, they rob energy.... by 1994 they were all proven wrong. Same with FS bikes. So although i cannot predict the future, i can say that maybe in 5 or 10yrs new materials will allow for 8" SC forks which are low enough and 2x or multiple times stiffer than today's existing forks.

It would be very interesting to save this thread, and re-read it in 2010 or something....

It isn't so much a material thing as it is a space thing. There isn't enough room to fit the springs in a SC length stantion.
The only solution is to make it longer.
That is why forks like the sherman actually extend below the axle.

Jm_ · Nov 19, 2004

BigMike said:
Like a Monster?

Are there SC forks that do that?!?

Did you read his post?

He already answered the question.

It's a space issue, and an issue that a dual crown fork has a higher stiffness to wieght ratio. With the extensive engineering it takes to make a light single crown fork, you can make a light dual crown fork that is stiffer. Take a SID (2.9lbs) and a SID XL...Now the SID XL might be the flexiest dual crown fork ever, but it was a LOT stiffer than a regular SID, and at only 3.7lbs, not much heavier. Another example is a Manitou Xvert DC or Xvert Ti, vs a current day 5 or 6" sherman. Sure the shermans are stiff, but the firefly version weighs 5.4lbs, and the breakout and others a lot more. Those 5 and 6" DC forks only weighed about 5 and 5.9lbs respectively ( even less for the older 115mm Xvert R). These forks didn't need huge 35mm stanchions either because they were dual crown forks and were already very stiff. You simply can't change the laws of physics. You can invent a single crown fork that might approach the weight of a dual crown, but it's going to take 10x more engineering and 10x more expensive materials and manufacturing processes, and in the end, if those were both applied to a DC fork, you'd have a superior DC fork. It's not that there's no place for longer travel SC forks, but the notion that they can somehow "take over" the DC forks is absurd. People are using the argument that "well X amount of years ago someone said that Y is the travel limit". This sounds very dramatic and romantic and all, but it's like saying in 1965 that we'd be crusing around at mach 20 in 1990 since in 1950 we could go mach 2, and in the 1960s we could go mach 3. There's a limit to what can be considered "flight" and after that you have the ballistics and control of a rocket, and current technology is just not there to have a resonably efficiant mach 3+ airliner or otherwise. The Concorde is a good example of fulfilling a need that doesn't exist, sure it would be nice to cruise at mach 2.02 everywhere, but the thing LOST money while it was in service, it was a economical blunder, and while the technology was somewhat impressive, it wasn't viable.

It's not as simple as; "in 2000 they said 5" was impossible but Marz did it, and in 2003 they said 6" was impossible but Manitou did it".

GravityFreakTJ · Nov 19, 2004

I'm with JM_. DC's aren't going anywhere :nope:

The Kadvang · Nov 20, 2004

Thank you JM_. Like I said at the beginning of this thread, there is definitly a place for this new crop of long travel single crowns, but there is no way a SC can be stiffer than a DC of the same weight. These new SC's are going to have tradeoffs, whether in price, weight, axel-crown height (66 anyone) or stiffness that might not be noticed by or even matter to the majority of riders, but a DC will always be better.

math2014 · Nov 20, 2004

JM_ i said we might see this or we might see that, i didnt imply that we are definately going to see DCs or SCs forks prevail or whatever.

From a physics and geometry point of view, yes DCs are superior (DUC32 maveric), i just mentioned that everything or almost everything we say today may sound totally inaccurate 5yrs down the road.

Bulldog · Nov 20, 2004

Jm_ said:
Another example is a Manitou Xvert DC or Xvert Ti....Those 5 and 6" DC forks only weighed about 5 and 5.9lbs respectively ( even less for the older 115mm Xvert R). These forks didn't need huge 35mm stanchions either because they were dual crown forks and were already very stiff.

I would put a 66 SC with 35mm stantions, huge flat arch, 20mm thru-axle, deep insertion oversized crown, etc up against your little 28mm, QR DC forks everyday.

Some of the weight differences you will surely bring up simply come from the damper/lube philosophies those companies use so you can't blame it entirely on the platform/chassis. Some of the height difference comes from today's increased needs for tire clearance.

As for you Jm even mentioning 5" and 4.5" DC forks, that is totally unfair. If you want I will dig up the thread on mtbr where you had a hissyfit about how adding even 10mm more travel to a fork should require a total redesign and will surely add weight. So bringing 115mm and 120mm forks into this discussion of 150-170mm forks makes you look a little foolish. It gets rather annoying to see you constantly arguing "both sides of the fence".

http://forums.mtbr.com/showthread.php?postid=469380#poststop :

"More travel requires longer lowers for more bushing overlap, not to mention longer stanchions and bushings. It also requires more reinforcement in the crown and steerer. 10mm of travel could very well mean a quarter more beef is required, unless you actually want your fork to snap in half."

"A 140mm fork vs a 150mm fork can mean a big difference, because while 10mm is only 10mm, the stuctural difference can be quite more (especially when talking about large amounts of leverage, which a 150mm fork will have, and taking into consideration the longer lowers add to the height and leverage)."

Bulldog · Nov 20, 2004

BigMike said:
I agree with you somewhat. True, you should not compare 140mm forks to 170mm forks, but he did have some valid points in his post.

He did. My point is he has thrown them out the window to make his examples in THIS thread work for him. But that's his style. It has become an amusement to me.

math2014 · Nov 20, 2004

Bulldog said:
He did. My point is he has thrown them out the window to make his examples in THIS thread work for him. But that's his style. It has become an amusement to me.

While the arguement for the need of strengthening is true, in the special case of 2005 Z1s it does not apply. Z1FR1 is identical (structuraly) to the Z1FR2 and Z1FR3, yet they differ by 20mm.

Bulldog · Nov 20, 2004

math2014 said:
While the arguement for the need of strengthening is true, in the special case of 2005 Z1s it does not apply. Z1FR1 is identical (structuraly) to the Z1FR2 and Z1FR3, yet they differ by 20mm.

There are more examples than that. The '00 Boxxer going to 7". The '02 SuperT going to 170mm. The Breakout+ going to 170mm. All without major redesign. All without catastrophic results.

But I'd love to hear Jm's opinion of a 170mm Xvert with QR and spindly 28mm stantions. According to him it would be a death-trap (I agree), so according to me it has no place in this thread as an example of a lightweight DC fork because with comparable travel to other forks in this thread it is not feasible. Jm just likes to manipulate his examples for most topics to suit his argument for the day, while knowing full-well that if someone else used those examples he would surely tear them to bits. It's fun reading his posts.

bigkonarider · Nov 20, 2004

I have a Z150 & 02 Monster-T on my Bullet.
SC is awesome for long Manuals & easier to pull up over terrain.Quicker too.
Monster-T is perfect for BIG drops & plain pounding through rock gardens,etc !
*So which one should i use to Race Snowshoe next year ???

Jm_ · Nov 20, 2004

Bulldog said:
There are more examples than that. The '00 Boxxer going to 7". The '02 SuperT going to 170mm. The Breakout+ going to 170mm. All without major redesign. All without catastrophic results.

But I'd love to hear Jm's opinion of a 170mm Xvert with QR and spindly 28mm stantions. According to him it would be a death-trap (I agree), so according to me it has no place in this thread as an example of a lightweight DC fork because with comparable travel to other forks in this thread it is not feasible. Jm just likes to manipulate his examples for most topics to suit his argument for the day, while knowing full-well that if someone else used those examples he would surely tear them to bits. It's fun reading his posts.

a good example of manipulating examples is how you are depicting an X-vert as having 28mm stanchions...

they had 30mm, obviously on a long travel fork, a 20mm axle would be good to have. This is why I threw in the Xvert-Ti example as well, although all X-verts had 30mm stanchions. If you want to compare a 66 to something, compare it to a manitou X-vert Carbon, same travel, X-vert Carbon much lighter, but just to prove my point, the difference in weight could be added to the X-vert carbon to beef it up, and you'd end up with a very stiff fork, low A to C that a single crown just can't match, and it illustrates the point of; "what's the point of a 170mm single crown?"

pot, meet kettle.

Bulldog · Nov 20, 2004

Jm_ said:
a good example of manipulating examples is how you are depicting an X-vert as having 28mm [steel] stanchions...they had 30mm, obviously on a long travel fork, a 20mm axle would be good to have. This is why I threw in the Xvert-Ti example as well, although all X-verts had 30mm stanchions.

If you want to compare a 66 to something, compare it to a manitou X-vert Carbon, same travel, X-vert Carbon much lighter, but just to prove my point, the difference in weight could be added to the X-vert carbon to beef it up, and you'd end up with a very stiff fork, low A to C that a single crown just can't match, and it illustrates the point of; "what's the point of a 170mm single crown?"

I'm pretty sure my old beater '99 Xvert had 28mm stantions. Also pretty sure it was a big deal when the Black series came out with their 30mm stantions as it was a new thing for them. Regardless, because I wasn't sure in my first post I placed a (?) after the size. Sorry you missed that, and sorry if I'm wrong.

If you need to use the Xvert Carbon for an example now, why did you use the short travel versions earlier? Ohhh, cuz the lighter weight numbers helped fabricate your point. Gotcha. Go ahead and beef up the Carbon all you want, but 7" travel with 30mm stantions ain't gonna cut it today, regardless of maker. They weren't a flop, but can't remember anyone being thrilled with the stiffness of the 30mm DH/FR forks. The Carbon was the biggest noodle, but people realized it was an acceptable trade-off because it was lighter than its competition.

As for "what's the point of a 170mm single crown?"...
1)-Well I for one wanted to slack my bike out more than a '05 Z.1 to see how it responds. However I don't want 7" or 8" of travel, so I chose the 66 150mm for it's height. With the changes made in stems and stem spacers there will be no negative impact on my handlebar height at all, just to the overall geo.
2)-Turning radius. I hate DC forks for trailriding. Simple. There are only a handful of DC forks that can come near the 180 lock-to-lock steering I require for some of our tight trails and stunts here, and none of them are what I'm looking for travel/weight/performance wise.
3)-I hate banging my knees on crowns and adjusters.
4)-Chassis. Can the Xvert Carbon fit a 3.0 tire? Whether that tire is needed or not is debatable, but if the 888/66 were designed to fit only a 2.7 they would be shorter too.

I know you know all this. You just choose to ignore it because that's the side of the fence you're sitting on today. I'm bored with this now, see you next time around. :thumb:

Toshi · Nov 20, 2004

Bulldog said:
1)-Well I for one wanted to slack my bike out more than a '05 Z.1 to see how it responds. However I don't want 7" or 8" of travel, so I chose the 66 150mm for it's height.

i'm not arguing your other (good) points, but i can't really see why you wouldn't want 7" or 8" of travel if you're already paying the price in a-c length. it makes sense that you'd accept the extra height as a tradeoff for the other positive things you mention, but to actively search for a tall fork without as much travel as possible for its height is kind of strange imo.

Do you think Dual Crown Forks are on their way out?

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

BrokenbikeMike

Monkey

Monkey

Monkey

Monkey

Chimp

Ranger LL

back alley ripper

Turbo Monkey

crappy

Turbo Monkey

I broke all the rules, but somehow still became mo

back alley ripper

Monkey

wannabe curb dropper

Turbo Monkey

crappy

Turbo Monkey

Turbo Monkey

Eastcoast Softcore

Monkey

Turbo Monkey

back alley ripper

Turbo Monkey

BrokenbikeMike

sled dog's bollocks

leg shavin roadie

I rule

wannabe curb dropper

Turbo Monkey

BrokenbikeMike

Turbo Monkey

wannabe curb dropper

Turbo Monkey

bigkonarider

Guest

sled dog's bollocks

Turbo Monkey

Harbinger of Doom